9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of examination of cargo or seizure of the goods after they left the customs barrier, etc. This is precisely what the petitioner wants the Court to do which is impermissible under the Statute - the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission is just and proper and calls for no interference - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.No.35796 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Satish Sundar For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran ORDER Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the purpose of availing customs duty exemption under Notification No.14/2006-Cus, the petitioner had remitted a duty amount of ₹ 2.29 lakhs. On 04.10.2006, the DRI drews samples from the consignment which was sent to Central Silk Technological Research Institute, Bangalore for testing. The test report reveals that the fabric which was imported is made up of 100% polyster filament yarn and the percentage of non-texturized filament yarn is 0%. Based on the report, on 25.10.2006 the goods were seized. It is thereafter the petitioner had paid a sum of ₹ 19.20 lakhs on 30.11.2006 which being the differential duty amount and bond was also furnished. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 02.03.2007 was issued calling upon the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the impugned order. 5.The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the revenue on the other hand would submit that water has flown after the decision of the Special Bench of CESTAT and relied upon the recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Ram Niwas Verma reported in 2015 (323) ELT 424 (Del), wherein the Court after considering the scope of Section 123 and Section 127B of the Act allowed the appeal filed by the revenue and set aside the order of Settlement Commission as being without jurisdiction. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of C.S.India vs. Additional Director General, DCEI, Bangalore reported in 2015 (323) ELT 91 (Kar) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sub-Section (1) of Section 123 of the ACt shows that the place, time and manner of seizure of the goods under the provisions of the Act is immaterial as the section only contemplates that Where any goods to which this section applies are seized . Therefore, no distinction can be made between seizure during the course of examination of cargo or seizure of the goods after they left the customs barrier, etc. This is precisely what the petitioner wants the Court to do which is impermissible under the Statute. 8.The above contention has been raised by the petitioner presumably impressed by the observations made in the case of Idris Y.Probunderwala. In fact this decision was considered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
